Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RedCliff" data-source="post: 292141" data-attributes="member: 5829">Re: Warrior of the Broken WakeI guess this is a matter of opinion really. I seriously thought about it, but in the end decided to leave it out. The reason was that I was going for a broad base on this, excluding no kind of character unless really necessary. That's one of the reasons I added the description of the warrior's variable attitude in the text. A warrior could be a berserking madman who revels in the destruction he causes, and people like that wouldn't be lawful good. But others could be calm and focused, and just be good at chanelling their energies into destroying things. I don't have too much problem seeing a paladin shunting into this class, especially if there is a horde of enemies threatening his land, people, holy grounds, etc. Such a man wouldn't be cackling with glee as he sunders weapons and smashes through walls. In fact he could be calmly moving through the battlefield, continually praying in a soft voice, beseeching his god to grant him the strength to do waht needs to be done. All the while foes and their battlements fall to his powerful swings. Ultimately, I decided that the destruction wasn't inherently evil; it was the way such abilities would be used that would determine alignment, much like magic. Though I'm certainly open to dissenting opinions. Beholders have natural AC of +11, Bullets of +12, there are a few demons and devils with +10 or better natural AC. I didn't do a thorough check of the MM before writing that, but my cursory look through seemed to generate enough variety that this quest didn't seem too limiting.Though I'll admit, dragons were the first thing that came to mind when I thought of the quest.This one really varries in usefullness depending on the particular rulings of individual DMs. I've played in campaigns where the DM uses the -10 rule for everything. If you're in a game like that, you won't be transfering too many spaces over. But I liked the picture of it, and I tend to think most DMs don't want to be bothered making stabilization checks for every goblin on the field.Mostly, but it only applies to natural armor. So you could have this at level 5 and get a +10 to attacking creatures. But if you face a grick, for example, whcih only has a +4 natural AC, you'll only get a +4 to hit it. The extra bonus is lost, since you can only use it to negate the natrual armor.Well, I was being more figurative than literal when I wrote it, but I'm not wedded to the particulars of this in any way. If people don't think it would be unbalancing, I wouldn't have a problem bumping up the power progression.You think it's too powerful? I figured being forced to give up the full attack opion to hold the opponent would be pretty limiting. Plus, it's otherwise like a normal grapple, meaning the odds of doing it to a larger opponent is pretty poor (maybe one size higher, considering the bonus the warrior gets, but nothing better than that). The reason I'm hesitant to place a times per day kind of limit on this ability is because it would be an extraordinary ability, rather than a supernatural or spell like ability. Extraordinary abilities are more like skills in that they are learned and rely only on knowledge and expertise, rather than some mystical source of energy to empower. Placing a limit on how many times per day you can do this doesn't seem right. It's like limiting the number of times per day you can use general feats like combat casting or power attack. If this ability is overpowered, I'd prefer to make it less effective than limit the number of times you can use it.That's absolutely true. My campaign hasn't reached the point where taking 50 or more points of damage in a sinlge hit would matter (they'd all die immediately anyway). But I don't know what else to do other than assume the use of the core rules as they are printed. I can't imagine trying to anticipate house rulings. I doubt I'd get anything else done.</blockquote>

Verification